Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released

[Tez]

so, i got a friend of mine who lives charlevoix to find out what john ramsey was doing today. Here's the short video he sent back:

bwhaaa!!!

[otg]

NOTE: I started this post before the news about the judge releasing the information on Friday. I’m going to go ahead and post it because I think it explains why Haddon and Morgan got involved (and too, because I spent so much damn time on it):


Well, looks like John has called out the cavalry, the big guns, the heavy hitters, the lawyers with a big pile of political chits who can make backroom deals and make things happen that leaves everyone else scratching their heads wondering what just happened. Looks like John thinks this is becoming a little more than just “more drama”. Looks like in a situation like this he doesn’t want to depend on that bottom-feeder Lin Wood. So what brought about this sudden panic? It wasn’t James Kolar’s book. It wasn’t the lawsuit Charlie Brennan filed. And it wasn’t even Judge Lowenbach’s order for Garnett to “show cause” as to why the GJ’s only “official action” be released to the public -- even though that is what is stated in the letter.


The “show cause” order came on Thursday, October 17. The next day, Friday the 18th is when Garnett announced that he would not fight the judge’s order and simply turn it over for him to decide. I think that is what sent RST into full defense mode. Finally, it actually looked like the indictment might be actually unsealed and released to the public because of what the judge had already said about his desire for “transparency”. RST’s last hope had been for the DA to continue putting up a fight to keep it “secret”. That allowed them to keep propagating the myth that the GJ had not indicted them.

Haddon’s letter is dated October 20, 2013 (a Sunday, if no one noticed). What kind of a panic must be raging through the Ramsey camp that would get a high-priced lawyer to work on a Sunday? (OT: Do lawyers get paid double-time or time-and-a-half for weekend work?)

(BTW, just to point out now that everyone who reads this knows the DA’s email address, as well as the format for anyone else who works for the County of Boulder.)


“Formally exonerated?” As opposed to an informal exoneration? Haddon knows better than that. He knows the legal definition of the word exonerate, and he knows the perception of the word in the mind of the public. Most people think exonerated is the equivalent of the word acquitted. And the RST has constantly reminded anyone who would listen that they were “exonerated” by the DA. Even Mary Lacy never used the word “exonerated” in her bogus “letter of absolution”. While we laypeople may not fully understand the implications of the word, an attorney knows exactly what it means. From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

But this doesn’t stop Haddon from incorrectly using term in a letter to another lawyer. So I think here he is using it knowing this letter will be made public and hoping it will continue to mislead the public who reads it.


Judge Lowenbach is not hearing the case against the Ramseys. He is not looking at evidence that the GJ had, nor any evidence that may have been developed after the GJ was dismissed. This is a simple case of whether or not to release to the public information on an “official action” taken by a body of people commissioned by the state. It was public money that paid for the GJ -- the public is owed an explanation as to what was done with their tax money.

The “constitutional right” he is referring to (and cites) here says the following:

Section 16a. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS

Any person who is a victim of a criminal act, or such person's designee, legal guardian, or surviving immediate family members if such person is deceased, shall have the right to be heard when relevant, informed, and present at all critical stages of the criminal justice process. All terminology, including the term "critical stages", shall be defined by the general assembly.

So here, Haddon is claiming this action is a “critical stage” in the “criminal justice process”. But the reason for this “right” being added to the Colorado Constitution is given as follows:

THE RIGHT OF A VICTIM'S SURVIVING IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER TO BE PRESENT AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A PARTY'S RIGHT TO SEQUESTER WITNESSES UNDER C.R.E. 615. The father of a murder victim who testified in the defendant's trial was wrongly excluded from subsequent portions of the trial. People v. Coney, 98 P.3d 930 (Colo. App. 2004).

If you’ve ever noticed in a trial, a potential witness is not allowed to hear testimony prior to his own. This is to prevent him from changing his testimony based on what transpires in the proceedings. But this rule is superseded by the above rule for a victim’s immediate family member in a criminal proceeding. This hearing presided over by Judge Lowenbach is not a criminal proceeding.

Haddon et al are taking a big gamble here. It seems they are trying to tie the release of the indictment to the evidence presented to the GJ by pleading for “fairness” in the information made available. But the DA, as custodian of the records of GJ proceedings, did not want to release any information despite the requirement by law of release of “official actions” of the GJ once the indictment was known to exist. The judge cannot order him to release the GJ proceedings. That means that any witness testimony or evidence the prosecutors presented to the GJ will not be released. Haddon would love to have that information, because it would tell them exactly what evidence they had against the Ramseys. But Haddon knows that information is never shared with a suspect until they are actually charged with a crime. Then it is part of the information that has to be turned over to the defendant’s side so they can prepare a defense.

But Haddon does not really want that information disclosed to the public, despite his having stated it in his letter. He knows it will not (cannot) be released. He is simply trying to tie it to the indictment from a sense of “fairness” and “transparency” so that the judge might decide not to release any of it. This won’t happen. This is absolutely essential to the reason for secrecy in the GJ proceedings.

I was skeptical at first that the GJ’s True Bill of Indictment would actually be released. But I have to admit that I see a lot more hope now for it to happen -- especially after reading this letter from Haddon. It shows me they are actually scared that it might be released to the public. Thank you, Charlie Brennan and Mimi Wesson.

[otg]

BTW, I've just gotta say...

It sure is nice to see all these posters who've been absent for so long coming out now. Posters who, whether they know it or not, are legends to the people who read here constantly but never post. I know how easy it is to get discouraged and give up after all we've seen happen over the many years. And while this latest action won't bring about any resolution to all the questions we still have, at least maybe now the RST will be exposed to the public for the deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest, duplicitous, deceptive, devious liars we know them to be (Okay, I could have gone on, but I thought I would limit myself only to adjectives that begin with a "d".).

[Cherokee]

THANKS SO MUCH, otg, for posting that letter here, along with your explanations! It is very much appreciated! YOU are very much appreciated here at FFJ!

I want to thank EVERY member of the FFJ forum, who has been with us in the trenches all these years, for keeping the flame of truth alive in the Ramsey case. I especially want to thank Tricia for providing a place for THE TRUTH.

[Cherokee]

BTW, I've just gotta say...

It sure is nice to see all these posters who've been absent for so long coming out now. Posters who, whether they know it or not, are legends to the people who read here constantly but never post. I know how easy it is to get discouraged and give up after all we've seen happen over the many years. And while this latest action won't bring about any resolution to all the questions we still have, at least maybe now the RST will be exposed to the public for the deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest, duplicitous, deceptive, devious liars we know them to be (Okay, I could have gone on, but I thought I would limit myself only to adjectives that begin with a "d".).

Ha ha ha, I can think of a few more "d" adjectives, and quite a few "non-d's"!

You are so right. If nothing else, at least this exposes the many lies the Ramseys and their Spin Team have told through the years.

[ACandyRose]

It's On ~ so I am hanging & refreshing here ~ and I Thank You for Still having it available for The Word!

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

Thank you Rat !!

That Grand Jury web page is so old. I haven't updated it since 2008!!

But it does document the "Chain of Events" from 1997 to 2006.

I'm happy that I was able to preserve so much of this case history so we can reference back.

ACR

[Cherokee]

Look what the cat dragged in...

An attorney representing John Ramsey, L. Lin Wood, said he was confident that no evidence in the grand jury case implicated the Ramsey family and the public should be able to see that for themselves.
“Anything less than the release of all of the proceedings is a gross injustice to the Ramsey family,” he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1494695

BLECH!

If Lin Wood's lips are moving, he's lying. Just reading the NAME "Lin Wood" makes me want to retch. He wouldn't know THE TRUTH if it hit smacked him upside the head with a tire iron!

Hmmm ... sounds like a good idea!

[otg]

THANKS SO MUCH, otg, for posting that letter here, along with your explanations! It is very much appreciated! YOU are very much appreciated here at FFJ!

I want to thank EVERY member of the FFJ forum, who has been with us in the trenches all these years, for keeping the flame of truth alive in the Ramsey case. I especially want to thank Tricia for providing a place for THE TRUTH.

And a big AMEN to that! Thank you so much, Tricia. And thank you, Cherokee, for the reminder.

[Cherokee]

Thank you Rat !!

That Grand Jury web page is so old. I haven't updated it since 2008!!

But it does document the "Chain of Events" from 1997 to 2006.

I'm happy that I was able to preserve so much of this case history so we can reference back.

ACR

ACR, it is SO GOOD TO SEE YOU!

I cannot thank you enough for everything you have done to document the Ramsey case on your website. You are a treasure!

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm

[madeleine_ws]

respectfully snipped

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.But this doesn’t stop Haddon from incorrectly using term in a letter to another lawyer.

THANK YOU!
I was thinking about the same thing yesterday and wanted to comment but didn't know how exactly to put it. (re ML using the wrong TERM in the first place!)

second,why did she "exonerate" only the Ramsey's??it's not like they were the only people on the suspect list,no??why didn't she also clear FW's name,Santa Bill's name,etc??

[madeleine_ws]

this stupid "exoneration" thing makes me bang my head whenever I hear about it.It was wrong on so many levels.

Even IF the DNA proves (it's just a possibility out of many anyway) that there was another person at the scene that night (how can you even prove WHEN it was deposited,anyway...) how the heck does ML know that it wasn't a Ramsey accomplice(friend,doctor,dunno,you name it,lots of possibilities since the phone records are "missing")????since the REST of the evidence points at THEM!

ETA:by accomplice I mean someone called over AFTER the fact,accomplice in the staging/cover-up/crime scene cleaning, not murder

[Cherokee]

this stupid "exoneration" thing makes me bang my head whenever I hear about it.It was wrong on so many levels.

Even IF the DNA proves (it's just a possibility out of many anyway) that there was another person at the scene that night (how can you even prove WHEN it was deposited,anyway...) how the heck does ML know that it wasn't a Ramsey accomplice(friend,doctor,dunno,you name it,lots of possibilities since the phone records are "missing")????since the REST of the evidence points at THEM!

ETA:by accomplice I mean someone called over AFTER the fact,accomplice in the staging/cover-up/crime scene cleaning, not murder

And why doesn't the media, who so blindly swallowed Lacy's "exoneration" ASK THESE SAME QUESTIONS?!!!!

Anyone with critical-thinking skills can see the SAME HOLES in Lacy's actions, SO WHY DOESN'T ANYONE WITH PRESS CREDENTIALS say that and push for a revocation of that worthless piece of paper that John Ramsey is hiding behind?!